Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others. RESULTS: There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

Short and long-term outcomes of underwater EMR compared to the traditional procedure in the real clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has been recently described as an alternative to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for flat colorectal polyps. However, the real applications remain unclear due to the lack of comparative studies. METHODS: a multi-centric prospective study was performed from November 2016 to December 2017. All lesions larger than 15 mm that were resected with both techniques were included in the study. The samples were matched using the size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score as a reference. The efficacy, efficiency and adverse events rates were compared. RESULTS: a total of 162 resections were collected (112 EMR and 50 U-EMR) with an average size of 25 mm. U-EMR achieved better results for the en bloc resection rate (49 vs 62%; p = 0.08) and there were no cases of an incomplete resection (10.7 vs 0%; p = 0.01). U-EMR was faster than EMR and there were no differences in the adverse events rate. Furthermore, U-EMR tended to achieve better results in terms of recurrence. Performing the resection in emersion appeared to prevent the cautery artefact, especially in sessile serrated adenomas. CONCLUSION: in the real clinical practice, U-EMR and EMR are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety. Furthermore, U-EMR may be a feasible approach to prevent cautery artefact, allowing an accurate pathologic assessment.

An assessment of bacterial overgrowth and translocation in the non-alcoholic fatty liver of patients with morbid obesity.

BACKGROUND: small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) and bacterial translocation across the intestinal wall have been allegedly associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL). Our goal was to study such alleged association in morbidly obese patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: patients with morbid obesity were consecutively included prior to bariatric surgery. Exclusion criteria included normal liver biopsy, other causes of liver disease, and duodenal mucosal atrophy. A gastroscopy was performed for duodenal aspirate culture and duodenal biopsy, and peripheral venous blood was drawn to assess lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and LPS-binding protein (LBP) levels. A liver biopsy was carried out during surgery. RESULTS: seventy-one patients were included; 26 were excluded because of normal liver biopsy. Forty-five had NAFL. Eighteen were male, mean age was 45.8 years (22-69), and BMI was 47.8 kg/m2 (37-58). A total of 25% had SIBO in their duodenal aspirate culture. There was statistical significance for the association of LBP levels and SIBO with steatosis grade (p < 0.05 and p = 0.077, respectively). There was no statistical association with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) index, but a trend towards association was found. LPS levels were not associated with steatosis grade or NASH index. CONCLUSIONS: the higher the grade of liver steatosis, the higher were the circulating LBP levels and SIBO rates seen in patients with morbid obesity and NAFL.

Endoscopic submucosal hydro-dissection as a rescue treatment of a large recurrent lateral spreading tumor in an ileorectal anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: subtotal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) is currently the most common surgical option in young patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). However, this surgery does prevent the appearance of lesions in the rectal remnant. In these cases, the endoscopic submucosal dissection might be a feasible option. However, drawbacks such as extreme fibrosis and a difficult maneuverability in the rectal remnant make this technique rather challenging. An ESD by the pocket creation method was planned with the purpose of overcoming these handicaps. CASE REPORT: an en-bloq resection of 30 mm of the recurrent adenoma located in rectal remnant of a 42-year-old woman with FAP was successfully achieved following this approach. Two months of follow up endoscopy did not show residual adenomatous tissue. DISCUSSION: in summary, endoscopic submucosal dissection by the pocket creation method allowed a safe and effective dissection and an en-bloc resection of this challenging polyp was achieved.